Skip to main content

Please Improve noise reduction to modern standards

Logged

Comments

81 comments

  • Kurt Aulbjerg

    NEED to se the result of noise reduction at all zoom levels

    13
  • BeO
    Top Commenter

    Yes, at all zoom levels. If there are performance concerns then pls. make it configurable for the user.

    9
  • Thomas D.

    This is one of the most important things in photo processing today.

    I use a workaround via two applications that complement each other wonderfully.

    The advantage is that you can do what you want with the images but that the light is no longer so important.

    Currently I can go up to ISO 25600 during weddings but as described I currently need two applications for this.

    Apart from that, there is no A.I. software that can de-noise images of a Phase One back well (I mean pre-de-noise, so that you can process the images as RAW).

    The important thing is that the images can be denoised on import, or at an intermediate step, so that they already look good during processing.

     

    4
  • Christian G
    Product Manager

    Hi Tino, 

    Thank you for the request.

    Are you talking about what you see in the Viewer (Preview/Proxy) or in the final processed output (jpeg/tiff etc) ? 

    2
  • Danny Batista

    Made a mention of this years ago. Glad to see it being logged. I use Topaz De-Noise now in Photoshop and it's integrated well with my full circle workflow from C1 to PS and Back to C1. Would be nice to have in C1 though obviously.

    2
  • Danny Batista

    Hey Christian, I think most people are a little thrown off by the preview not matching the final export. It's definitely odd to have to export the image to confirm the final ouput looks how you're expecting instead of just approving of the preview and being confident that you'll get what you see when exporting.

    4
  • Ric Cohn

    Another example of how far CaptureOne is falling. I'm depending more and more on taking the time to go to a separate application for noise reduction. Now that LR has introduced NR for free there is one more reason to consider abandoning C1 for all except on-set capture (and I understand LR is getting better at that as well). I hope C1 steps up its game.

    3
  • Thomas D.

    Ric Cohn

    C1 is still far superior to me than LR.

    Because i don't even need to look on the interface to process an image, i just use my keyboard or a seperate controller.

    ___

    Because of the denoising, the evolving process is just fasten up and special models are already in the making (the others just don't sleep).

    Since i'm using DxOs AI denoising (twice as fast as Adobe's) since 2020, i don't know if i should care about C1 lacking of it, because there is no problem with this, but who knows how long DxO and C1 stay in the game.

    But i would like to see how C1 would do the process, i'm very interested in the technology and would do it myself if i could.

     

     

     

    2
  • Curtis P

    Lately I shoot primarily wildlife in low light and have a lot of high ISO noise in my images. I have to start with Topaz software and export a DNG before working in C1 because of the poor noise algorithms implemented in C1.  By this point the colors in the DNG have been determined by Topaz, essentially ruining the best feature of C1 (i.e. the color science). 

    Please C1, compete with Adobe and Topaz and impliment an AI-based noise reduction algorithm that the user can enable by choice, i.e. the user can decide to enable or not, particularly if they have suitable GPU.

    4
  • Danny Batista

    First name Last Name, why are you starting in topaz. The proper workflow is start your raws in capture one, do all raw workflow, right click and edit in photoshop for all your retouching workflow AND use topaz as a plugin. OR if you’re against photoshop, then just export the finished raw and then open in topaz for the final denoising. While I agree that c1 denoising is awful, your workflow is backwards here. Trust me, instead of waiting for c1 denoise improvements, swap your workflow and you won’t be upset each time you work on a photo

    1
  • Tino Nettling

    Danny Batista, even you do it in the proper workflow there are some drawbacks.. for example i'm loosing lens correction info when sending a DNG to Topaz Photo AI

    I really hope they can improve on C1 in this area. 

    0
  • Danny Batista

    But that’s what I mean - do all lens correction, local raw adjustments, exposure balancing, color correcting, easy distraction removal all in c1 on the raw file, then go to ps or topaz or wherever you want to go AFTER taking advantage of all the raw data and options in c1. I’ve never needed to convert anything to dng before or after my raw edits in the past 10 years. Either way the denoising is not good in c1 but I haven’t let that hold me back and I don’t feel like I’m agaisnt a brick wall with the info I posted above.

    1
  • Ric Cohn

    Danny Batista, I understand your workflow works for you, but I never assume other's don't have valid reasons for not following my "obviously better" workflow. I use DxO PureRaw on noisy images which IMHO is better on many images than Topaz. It only works on Raw files. I also rarely need to go to Photoshop these days and being forced to make all my decisions and export a Tiff to send to a program like Topaz would be a big hit on productivity. It all depends on the type of images you are using it on and the end purpose of the images. Denoising programs have allowed me to get what I consider good looking images with my R5 I never would have considered trying before. Now that Lightroom has implemented a version that I'm sure will get better, it ups the stakes for programs like C1. Similar to when new "professional" lenses started needing lens correction to be acceptable. Having correction modules for more lenses became a necessity to remain in the game.

    1
  • Danny Batista

    Hey Ric, I was directly talking to the commenter named FirstName last name who was complaining about losing color science abilities by their workflow, and to other individual who was concerned about losing lens correction info. They seemed to be doing things that could easily be corrected just by starting in C1. Didn’t mean to bring you into this but just know that the workflow I mentioned is seamless and quick even though I too, just like you, want the denoising options available in C1. However instead of having everyone in here feel helpless, I was attempting to give them go-to’s that have worked for me for a decade and that I teach to photographers in 1 to 1’s around the world. Tomorrow I’m meeting with a c1 dev for a zoom meeting to go over subject selection ai masking, and maybe I’ll drop some hints about this thread too.

    0
  • Ric Cohn

    Danny, thanks for your clarification. With my workflow I don't actually notice a loss of control with C1's excellent color grading, etc. after returning the .dng from DxO. Masking has improved in recent releases, but better masking control and subject detection for masking would also be very good. Please do mention this thread if you can! Ric

    0
  • Johan Forssblad

    Would it be possible to make a Noise Reduction tool that works with other files than RAW, i.e. TIFF?

    I am scanning plenty of 6x6 cm positive films and would appreciate a workflow within CO.

    Such feature could make it worth upgrading from my perpetual CO 22 version! Sincerely Johan, Sweden

    1
  • Eugene Girshtel

    I agree that Capture one needs to improve noise reduction. I shoot with a Fuji XT3 and when zooming in, I can see these strange circular wormy objects throughout the image on high iso images. I then have to mask the subject and background on separate layers and reduce the Noise Reduction detail to zero on the background layer. I raise the detail slider on the subject layer to bring back some sharpness. The noise reduction capabilities are falling behind the rest of the field and adding an improved noise reduction algorithm would make MANY users jump to purchase the latest version of capture one.

    1
  • Ryan Johnson

    The noise reduction in C1 was state of the art until AI denoising came around. How are you people so oblivious to how uncharacteristically good the denoising is in C1? I will say it works best with Canon images, and the "preserve detail" part of the feature is atrocious on high-ISO images. It just introduces JPEG blocking and artifacting. "Turns them blurry" --yeah, because the noise effectively causes data loss.

     

    AI denoising is "important" ish, but is not the biggest problem C1 needs to address. They have other performance issues and catalog integrity issues that need to be addressed before a shiny new feature gets released. The Catalogs are not ACID compliant, and backups fail when initiated from the File menu option, and they don't use a proper database engine. They store everything in a SQLite database file. Concurrency is problematic with SQLite 2.0, so they need to update to 3.0 at the bare minimum, or ditch SQLite for something more reasonable like MariaDB or a Graph database, which might speed up some of the Catalog operations.

     

    Database files retain very old records that are invalid. I found records of files in locations that no longer existed after I had re-located every file in the database after upgrading an old DB and reinstalling Windows for the umpteenth time. This kind of data sanitation issue is more urgent to fix than adding a potentially more expensive algorithm (both in terms of development and computational cost).

     

    You can see the problem and my solution here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRP34FwamMc&t=7s

     

    Hand-hacking the database is the only way to fix this, afaik. The "Verify catalog" feature in the File menu may address this, but I doubt it, because the db's are verified every time I back them up, and I've been backing them up for years before I discovered this problem.

    1
  • Tino Nettling

    The noise reduction in C1 was state of the art until AI denoising came around.

    Ryan Johnson

    No, simply no. The denoise was always the weakest part in C1. I'm writing since years to them to improve it, but nothing happens.

    The denoising is so bad that it actually makes the images worse than better. If i have images that need denoising  i always have to rely on external tools. 

    About the the other issue you mention - i suggest to leave that out of this denoise topic and as i understand these are also important issues, so it would be great to make a separate topic for this! 

    2
  • Eugene Girshtel

    Ryan Johnson, I totally agree that the database needs rework as well but denoising is something they should be thinking about concurrently. 

    I happen to fall victim to the poor database management recently (Capture one 20 few months ago) when I went to restore a catalog on a reformatted computer. None of the backups were able to restore properly even though they were all verified after backup. After some hacking around, I was able to get the catalog to import back but all of my masks were gone from the layers. Support said it was a known bug.  I can't believe a professional company like Capture one could still be having issues like this. 

    Anyway, the point is, the database needs rework as well as some tweaks to denoising. I still enjoy using Capture One's denoise abilities but they can be improved. 

    1
  • Ryan Johnson

    No, simply no. The denoise was always the weakest part in C1.

    Tino Nettling did you even try the Lightroom noise reduction? I used Lightroom for 7+ years, and moving the C1 was the best decision I made for noise reduction capabilities. So, yeah, just yeah, I know what I'm talking about. I've used denoising algorithms in many different photography softwares.

    State your point of reference for comparison, because I'm really curious what magical software you think you used.

    About the the other issue you mention - i suggest to leave that out of this denoise topic

    No, when people keep saying this should be their top priority...they opened the door to priorities, and this is NOT the top priority, not when you have random files incapable of being batch renamed, and claiming they don't exist, when they clearly do exist by the exact name shown in the app; and folders randomly reverting to a previous name inside the catalog, after renaming them INSIDE of CaptureOne, then closing the app, and reopening it, just to find that the catalog's records no longer match what you updated the name to.

    So yeah, you need to understand the meaning of priorities.

    -1
  • Tino Nettling

    Ryan Johnson

    i tried over the time  denoising  capabilities of basically all major apps. Lightroom has always been better 

    I made just now again a quick comparison... please don't tell me that you find C1 denoise better

    https://magentacloud.de/s/rHZx37S7HFQYbr7

    (i haven't used the AI denoise of LR, just the normal denoise setting)

     

    This is the topic about "Improve denoise quality". I really don't get why you are discussing other topics. 
    I'm not saying anything about priorities. Thats up to the Capture One Team and the community to vote. 
    Please create a new topic with the issue you mentioned. 

     

     

    2
  • BeO
    Top Commenter

    Hi Tino,

    Noise reduction is a tool which co-determines the overall look of the image, it cannot be judged on its own.

    Maybe you did not pay much attention to the settings (the LR image looks blurry, and of course it blurs noise too), or you look at images differently than I do (most certainly, because every one is somewhat different). Anyway, the C1 image looks better to me than the LR image, even when changing them to B&W in order to eliminate the WB differences / color rendition.

    Anyway, although I favor the C1 image quality for this image this doesn't mean too much, because it is just one image. I firmly believe that there are always images which look better in one raw converter, and for other images I prefer the other.

    However, with most images, and for my taste, the IQ of C1 wins over Lighroom's IQ, including noise reduction.

    For very high ISO images I tend to prefer DXO Photolab.

    But, LR has a new AI NR tool, I think the comparison should be done using the best option in each converter when we are discussing improvements for C1, not the second best (assuming the LR AI NR is better, which I don't know).

     

    0
  • Tino Nettling

    Hi BeO

    i used very standard almost default settings and try to match them - by using for luminance denoise of 50% in both apps. 

    I have to admit that i really cannot understand , with the best will , how you can like the C1 image better. I'm really disturbed by the big splotchy clumps - it's unusable to me. The default setting of LR are way better. 

    If i don't like the slightly softer look of LR i have several controls to improve that. In C1 there no controls to eliminate this splotchy appearance.

    The aim of this comparison was not to show the difference with todays possibilities - if i wanted this C1 would have lost completly . I added an image called lrAI_denoise. Have a look.

    I have done several tests and i'm using C1 since many years .. the outcome of the denoising in C1 is always the same.. it adds a ton of blurry splotches instead of removing the noise.  I had not one single case where i was happy with denoising quality. I always had to use external tools to achieve a satisfying image-quality. 

    What is that IQ you mention? 

     

    One point - wich i really don't get. I'm making here a suggestion to improve the quality of C1. Why do i have to discuss that and what are we discussing actually?  
    It almost feels as i have asked to make C1 worse and i have to justify that. 

    0
  • BeO
    Top Commenter

    Hi Tino.

    The default setting of LR are way better. 

    Possibly. I tend to lower the Details slider in C1. I also tend to lower the sharpening radius and increase the sharpening amount.

    The aim of this comparison was not to show the difference with todays possibilities

    You are asking to improve C1, so it should play in your favor if you use LR todays possibilities to make your point that C1 needs to improve.

    Yes, the LR AI is better then LR standard for this image.

    What is that IQ you mention?

    Are you asking what IQ means? Image Quality.

    Or are you asking what IQ I see in that C1 rendered image? Well, this image is not the champion of IQ, but I dislike the LR standard version much more.

    One point - wich i really don't get. I'm making here a suggestion to improve the quality of C1. Why do i have to discuss that and what are we discussing actually?  

    I like the IQ of images rendered by C1 more then I like the LR way of rendering, for most of my images.
    As far as high ISO or low exposure images are concerned, AI powered NR algorithms have exceeded IQ of both LR with standard NR and C1, if used carefully. I actually do support your suggestion to improve C1 by adding AI powered NR options.

    0
  • Tino Nettling

    i just wanted to know what IQ stands for  -  in this context

    i updated my first post with two images comparing whats possible currently in C1 and LR

    0
  • FirstName LastName

    Current batch of AI photo editing softwares on the market provided much more capable noise reduction / image sharpen abilities than C1 "noise reduction" offering. C1 noise reduction feature are really are far behind than LR, Topaz, etc. For the prize that C1 charges, need to move fast to improve NR ability to remain competitive with Adobe and others.

    3
  • Bernard Languillier

    I have been a capture one user for many many years and use it as my main converter for my IQ4-150, GFX-100s and Nikon Z7II, Z8 and Z9.

    I also use DxO PL6 and have to agree, C1 Pro is very far behind (at least 2+ stops equivalent, meaning that ISO 1600 in C1 Pro is slightly behind ISO 6400 in DxO PL6, a huge difference) in noise reduction and this is by far the No1 thing I would like to see improved.

    The second one being the speed of preview generation and culling. It is far from using the raw power of modern CPU and more importantly GPUs.

    Thank you.

    1
  • David Michael Jacobs

    I guess it's not me. I tried using C1 noise reduction and I wasn't satisfied. Picked up Topaz Photo AI and it wasn't much better. As of the big 2.0 update, it smokes! Topaz still has a big issue with recognizing Canon's version of the DNG file, CR3. I'm sure there are those who have cameras made by other manufacturers who are experiencing the same issue. Have to take the extra step and convert the file to a 16 bit TIFF. Too bad C1 doesn't have noise reduction as good as, if not better than Topaz, Lightroom does. But C1 is way better than Lightroom for editing RAW files. It would be nice to have great noise reduction within C1, so it wouldn't be necessary to look elsewhere.

    2
  • Ian Wilson
    Moderator
    Top Commenter

    I suppose other people's mileage may vary. But as it happens I was looking at an image I took yesterday at ISO 2500 (on a Nikon Z6ii). As I sometimes do out of curiosity, I had a go at processing it in Lightroom as well as my usual Capture One. One of the things that I noticed was that with the default settings, the noise reduction was better in Capture One than in Lightroom.

    Ian

    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.